Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think there's probably something seriously wrong at the heart of the member for Goldstein's Liberal philosophy. I'm certainly not speaking in this debate today because I want to grandstand or because I'm out of touch with my electorate. I'm making a contribution here in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, like many of my Labor colleagues, because I represent an electorate in which large numbers of people—even if they are fortunate enough to have jobs—are really struggling to make ends meet. They struggle to find as much work as they need to sustain their families. They struggle to meet the ever-increasing costs of living on wages that remain stagnant and are currently at record low rates relative to the cost of living. The reality for so many of these hardworking people is that penalty rates have become an essential component of their pay. It's the difference between just managing and not really managing at all. Cuts to penalty rates in the retail and hospitality sector, in which many of my constituents are employed—even only partial cuts—would have the effect of a cut of up to 10 per cent of these workers' wages. That 10 per cent cut is just not possible. My constituents cannot take that hit. When you're talking about modest pay packets to begin with, this is, as I said, a devastating cut.

We know that those who will be most affected will be the young people; they'll be women; and they'll be the migrant workers. We all know that young people in particular who juggle work and study are already at risk of being exploited, underpaid and treated as expendable by many employers. The evidence is in, in relation to the exploitation of young people. Women, too, who are often the sole supporters of their families and who juggle numerous paid and unpaid jobs at the same time, stand to be affected, as do migrant workers who have limited working choices because of language barriers and because they lack the networks, and who may be highly qualified, as many of my constituents are, but not have those qualifications or experience recognised in the local employment market.

Of course, there will be many working men equally affected, as women will be, by cuts to penalty rates and to take-home pay, particularly those in my electorate who after years of dedicated service have found themselves the victims of a declining manufacturing sector and are forced to make do with irregular, casual and part-time work. The loss of the local car industry due to the neglect and outright hostility of this government has for so many local women and, in particular, men in my electorate led to insecure and often poorly paid work. Now, this unemployment and insecurity for men in particular is further compounded by the devastating impact it creates on their sense of identity as providers for their families. It's a devastating hit at a very personal level, affecting their sense of purpose and their contribution to the broader community and to their families.

Coherent industry policy and fair wages policy are vital because they have a real impact on real lives and communities, such as those that I represent. They impact upon the ability of working people to feed their kids, to pay rent and to enjoy, however modestly, their lives. The ability to enjoy life is not some indulgence that should be reserved for highly paid white-collar workers, as some on the other side here seem to believe. If we're serious about economic stimulus and growth, we need a society where people can afford to participate. It does take a community of properly paid people to ensure that more people like them can actually get jobs.

Just last week I was speaking to one of the last industries that still exist in my electorate, and that is the caravan-manufacturing industry. This is a very important local industry that employs local people. Their view is that, if people can't afford to buy caravans, because they can barely afford to pay the rent, what will happen to those jobs? That's a real issue for us in the federal seat of Calwell.

The protection of take-home pay is not only vital for fairness and for justice but equally important for the health of our economy. I strongly reject the argument that cutting wages at this time of already historically low wages will somehow lead to employment growth. It won't. It does not. It has not and it never will. Anyone who says that is propagating a myth.

I support this bill because it protects the take-home pay of some 700,000 low-paid workers. That is in our national interests. I support this bill because it is in our national interest to do so.

See this speech in context